Good point, there was a 3 x HD 6970 Crossfire review and it seems Bulldozer did quite well. The SB was Overclocked 430MHz more than Bulldozer and yet Bulldozer stood it's ground just losing on a few game benchies. Now where is that link?

Click to expand...

Actually 2xHD 6870 CFX & FX-8150 (don't remember which mobo, might be Crosshair V Formula), think it was PureOverclock on TPU's front page reviews on Wednesday; the 1st f***load of reviews that popped up on the day Dozer launched (Wednesday ).

P.S. When i say i'm hungry for FX-8150 review with multi-GPU setup i mean that i am not satisfied with the only review like that in PureOverclock; i want more & prefferrably with rev. B2/C0 FX-8150/8120 in such setup.

2cadaveca:

Yeah, i thought bout that too (that some show up as ES cause the CPU-Z wasn't updated to 1.58.7), but the way i remember the reviews, most of them had FX-8150 listed in CPU-Z as FX-8130P; might be wrong, though.

To think that an underdog company with less money, less resources, etc. will trump a technology giant like intel is just asking for someone to assume you're retarded.

I really don't get the big disappointment here. It's not a surprise at all.

Click to expand...

Even where it COULD have "won", price per performance, it failed miserably. Using Tech Report's scatter plot (for the performance points) and Newegg.com's prices, it's 425 percentage points for the i7 2600k ($315) and 355 percentage points for the FX-8150 ($280). The i5 2500k ($220) has 360 percentage points while it's 330 percentage points for the FX-8120 ($220).

So their price/perf:
i7 2600k - $0.7412 per percentage point
i5 2500k - $0.6111 per percentage point
FX-8150 - $0.7887 per percentage point
FX-8120 - $0.6667 per percentage point

So 2600k v. 8150, AMD loses. Even with 2500k v. 8150. 2500k v. 8120, same story. It's only the 2600k v. 8120 wherein AMD "wins" in terms of price/perf. But then again it's 425 percentage points in performance v. 330.

(Using Tech Report's figures)
And there is still the power consumption to talk about. Core i7 2600K and i5 2500K both idles at 64W. Peak power consumption is 144W and 132W respectively. The FX-8150 has an idle power consumption at 76W and peaks at 209W. There is also a "task energy" graph for them; 8.5W and 9.9W respectively for the two Intel CPUs while it's 14.4W for the FX-8150. Comparing the 2600K with the 8150, $315:$280 means you saved just $35, AND you end up using more power (12W more at idle, 65W more peak, 5.9W more task energy).

Even where it COULD have "won", price per performance, it failed miserably. Using Tech Report's scatter plot (for the performance points) and Newegg.com's prices, it's 425 percentage points for the i7 2600k ($315) and 355 percentage points for the FX-8150 ($280). The i5 2500k ($220) has 360 percentage points while it's 330 percentage points for the FX-8120 ($220).

So their price/perf:
i7 2600k - $0.7412 per percentage point
i5 2500k - $0.6111 per percentage point
FX-8150 - $0.7887 per percentage point
FX-8120 - $0.6667 per percentage point

So 2600k v. 8150, AMD loses. Even with 2500k v. 8150. 2500k v. 8120, same story. It's only the 2600k v. 8120 wherein AMD "wins" in terms of price/perf. But then again it's 425 percentage points in performance v. 330.

(Using Tech Report's figures)
And there is still the power consumption to talk about. Core i7 2600K and i5 2500K both idles at 64W. Peak power consumption is 144W and 132W respectively. The FX-8150 has an idle power consumption at 76W and peaks at 209W. There is also a "task energy" graph for them; 8.5W and 9.9W respectively for the two Intel CPUs while it's 14.4W for the FX-8150. Comparing the 2600K with the 8150, $315:$280 means you saved just $35, AND you end up using more power (12W more at idle, 65W more peak, 5.9W more task energy).

Click to expand...

If you already have an Socket AM3 and AM3+ mobo, Bulldozer is the better buy.

If Someone at Intel touched you in your no-no spot, it's a better buy.

Honestly, only benchers and hardcore overclockers should be plunking down their hard earned cash in an FX chip.
I get that some of you have a burning passion for AMD and a serious hate-on for Intel, but buying out of brand loyalty is pretty dumb if you can get an Intel rig that will demolish your AMD for around the same price, or less.

Sell your mobo and get Intel. Or stick with a Thuban or Deneb. Bulldozer should be avoided until it starts to perform better. If it can.

There are a lot of "if's" to satisfy for Bulldozer to be "the better buy."

If you have the mobo already, it's a better buy.

If you don't pay for electricity, it's a better buy.

If you are already using software from the future, it's a better buy.

etc.

Click to expand...

You're kidding me right? Your electricity lol, for a few extra watts. Anyhow to each his own. I still admire AMD for putting out innovation. And as soon as they iron out any issues it should perform better.

Yup, saw this review, was good but few more gaming benchies wouldn't hurt; was ace nevertheless.

The only thing i didn't found was CPU-Z screen dump; best way to know which version & which CPU was used; plus, being represented by AMD as gaming CPU i missed AvP3 & Crysis 2 DX11, but otherwise was great review nevertheless (not that other reviews wasn't great too).

Hope rev. B2/C0 will be benched too & besides the way i see it i'll have all components in my system (Sabertooth 990FX, AX1200W, 2x4GB DDR3 1600MHz RAM) & wait for rev. C0 FX-8150; but not before the rev. C0 review here.

If you already have an Socket AM3 and AM3+ mobo, Bulldozer is the better buy.

Click to expand...

The problem with that, is if you have an X6 1100t on that same AM3+ mobo, Bulldozer is a sidegrade at best. So it's a no-buy. Can you imagine it, every rabid AMD fan ALREADY HAS the fastest chip in the previous generation.

AMD today unleashed the AMD FX family of CPUs, delivering a fully unlocked and customizable experience for desktop PC users. The AMD FX series of desktop CPUs includes the first-ever eight-core desktop processor, enabling extreme multi-display gaming, mega-tasking and HD content creation for PC and digital enthusiasts – all for less than $245 (suggested U.S. retail price). This marks the first retail availability of processors that use AMD’s new multi-core architecture (codenamed “Bulldozer”), which is included in AMD’s upcoming server CPU (codenamed “Interlagos”) and the next-generation of AMD Accelerated Processing Units.

This WHOLE thing should be in quotes. Wasn't this just copy/pasted in from their press conference?

You're kidding me right? Your electricity lol, for a few extra watts. Anyhow to each his own. I still admire AMD for putting out innovation. And as soon as they iron out any issues it should perform better.

The problem with that, is if you have an X6 1100t on that same AM3+ mobo, Bulldozer is a sidegrade at best. So it's a no-buy. Can you imagine it, every rabid AMD fan ALREADY HAS the fastest chip in the previous generation.

That is, IMO, very ouch.

Click to expand...

Yeah, as you can see from the graph, the X6 1100T with a 990FX board uses slightly less energy over rendering the same scene. And is just slightly behind it in terms of "performance" on it.

So if you have a 990FX board and an 1100T, buying the FX-8150 would mean getting a more expensive processor with a slight performance advantage but use up more energy. Do rendering multiple times a day and of course that "slight" doesn't become slight anymore.

Well, 85% of it, close but quite not at 90%; gonna wait for either rev. C0 or the actual Piledriver; just like Dozer is also designated for AM3+. Hope that rev. B2/C0 will be before end of this year; i still willing to buy Sabertooth 990FX & DDR3 1600MHz RAM to back up the CPU.

If only there was one review that did following: 1) had the latest revision CPU; 2) installed latest BIOS, app versions & drivers; 3) used more than one GPU, had DDR3 1600MHz & higher RAM & SSDs stead of HDDs; that would be the best way to do a review of this CPU. Stead, the way i remember, there were reviews that partially used some out of all stuff i mentioned above but with ES CPU, or B2 CPU with low-end components & not all apps were up-to-date; might be wrong but that was the way i remember. Nevermind, once rev. C0 comes out it should sort out how all quad-, hex- & octo-cored parts perform; bet not night & day difference but somehow better than how they perform now, definitelly better than rev. B0 (ES).

Seriously though, it would be nice to see Bulldozer Benchmarked with 16GB DDR3-1866, SSD 120GB x 4 in RAID 10 or 0, HD 6970 Crossfire & NVIDIA's high end GPU for SLI. I mean, yes AMD needs to fix/tweak the hell out of Bulldozer and try hard to convert this Server/Workstation CPU into a Desktop CPU. But the above should be considered when Benching.

Seriously though, it would be nice to see Bulldozer Benchmarked with 16GB DDR3-1866, SSD 120GB x 4 in RAID 10 or 0, HD 6970 Crossfire & NVIDIA's high end GPU for SLI. I mean, yes AMD needs to fix/tweak the hell out of Bulldozer and try hard to convert this Server/Workstation CPU into a Desktop CPU. But the above should be considered when Benching.

Click to expand...

You really need to just get one. No amount of anything is going to make this chip any good. Believe me, people who have this chip (myself included) know what it is. Reading your posts, you have no idea. Please, get one.

You really need to just get one. No amount of anything is going to make this chip any good. Believe me, people who have this chip (myself included) know what it is. Reading your posts, you have no idea. Please, get one.

Click to expand...

I have to ask:
Is it really that bad?
How do you personally think it compares to Thuban?
and where do you have that list of AM3+ board power phases at? can't find it anywhere...